‘Dual membership not a punishable offence': SACP not scared of ANC ultimatum
The South African Communist Party (SACP) is undeterred by an ultimatum from the ANC ahead of next year's local government elections.
ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula told reporters on Wednesday that the SACP's decision to contest the election implies that their members will have to choose between the two parties.
'The implication of that decision says choose between the SACP and the ANC,' he said.
Mbalula said the ANC shares strategic information with the SACP, but this could also change.
'We share our strategy in terms of contesting elections, and they also attend our strategy workshops. They participate in all the processes led by the ANC in terms of the appointment of public representatives and so on. This decision means that all of those things will be reviewed in terms of how we work with them,' he said.
Don't give up ANC membership
However, SACP spokesperson Mbulelo Mandlana said dual membership 'is not a punishable offence'.
'The principle of dual membership in the alliance predates the electoral era of the South African revolution. The inconveniences of the era of elections should not be used to justify undermining the centrality of the principle of dual membership.'
Mandlana also said the SACP would not be held ransom by the ANC.
'The decisions of the individual alliance organisations are not subject to review by other organisations of the alliance; if that were the case, then the alliance would not be an alliance of equals but a subordination of some organisations by others.
'Against that backdrop, the very preposition that the ANC was engaged in an attempt to persuade the SACP against the express provisions of its national congress on contesting elections is not just incorrect but is contemptuous of the SACP as an organisation and indeed its members,' he said.
Inside knowledge
Mandlana said the SACP understands the implications of its decision to contest elections and would not interfere with the ANC's strategy.
'The ANC has a right to invite whom it wants to invite into its election strategy meetings, the SACP will not interfere in that. The same is true of the SACP,' he said.
What about SACP leaders in government?
The ultimatum has sparked concerns that SACP members who currently hold prominent positions in local and national government could be left out in the dark. In the longer term, it may raise questions about the future of Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Blade Nzimande and newly-appointed higher education minister Buti Manamela in Cabinet.
Mandlana said SACP members in parliament and Cabinet have the right to be there since the party campaigned for the ANC in the previous elections.
ALSO READ: 'If they want to bring sanctions, let them': Mbalula challenges Trump administration
ANC 'arrogance'
On the weekend, SACP secretary-general Solly Mapaila expressed frustration with the lack of progress that the alliance is making in dealing with the country's challenges.
He blamed the ANC for this and described the party as arrogant.
'We are sick of attending meaningless meetings with the ANC. The ANC is arrogant to us, they sometimes tell us take it or leave it,' he told supporters at the party's 104th anniversary in KwaZulu-Natal.
ALSO READ: Mbalula denies that ANC could not afford a venue to host NEC meeting
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
Here's how to convince Trump of BEE
Wouldn't it be great if South Africa could go to the US and show the successes of BEE, rather than an arbitrary moral assertion? If you're seeking honesty, convincing Donald Trump of the ethics behind BEE is a losing battle. I have no idea what that phone call between him and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was all about, but unless it outlined the successes of BEE, how could anybody expect to turn his opinion? The Americans think BEE as a matter of redress is wrong. South Africa thinks it's right. There are no tie-breakers in this one. It's not like Sweden is going to jump in with a casting vote. So, if the US's actions towards South Africa are based on its sentiment towards our internal policies, there is little more than a dichotomous choice: appease the US or tell them to shove off. With Trump at the helm, it's unlikely that you're going to get a hybrid solution, especially since we aren't 'holding the cards'. Talks between SA and US a waste of time So why are we wasting time on bilateral talks trying to convince one another of the ethics behind the concept? A policy like BEE is polarising. I don't think anybody believes a phone call will take an extreme man from one side of the podium to the other. Perhaps we're gearing up to demonise the US and that may have been a decent political strategy if we had any political capital to play with. Given South Africa's decreasing importance in the global economy, it doesn't seem like we even have that going for us. A land where journalists do more to deal with corruption than the collective multiple tax-funded institutions of state? That's the kind of country that's going to demonise the US? Forgive my doubts, but they are present. ALSO READ: Inside Ramaphosa's call with Trump over devastating tariffs So while the argument of immorality is available to the Trump administration, the argument of morality isn't convincing. Two kids are arguing. One says yes, one says no. Who wins? Who knows, but the outcome won't be based on whether they said yes or no. It will be based on what else they come to the argument with. The US is coming into this argument with a bigger economy, more leverage and, very importantly, an equally held belief in the morality of its argument. What's South Africa got? That same equally held belief? That's not going to move the needle, not even in the slightest. Despite making the claim that we are not beggars, we sure do seem to be doing our share of begging at the moment. Why? Is it important to appease the US? If it is, then do it! Stop trying to drag this out, knowing it's a losing battle. I'd rather resources are spent developing South Africa to the point where we could tell the US to get lost… but that would take administrative competency, some work and a whole lot of things we don't expect from our government. ALSO READ: 'If they want to bring sanctions, let them': Mbalula challenges Trump administration If you ask the question of what the ideal situation would be, it would be that we can play nicely with all the countries of the world. That's not happening, but given the importance of the US as a trading partner, it would be nice to prioritise playing nicely with them. How to convince US that BEE is good How do we convince them that BEE is the way forward? It's pretty simple. Do it the way Trump loves doing things – with spectacle. Bring out the posters of the BEE success stories – show the economic growth brought on by BEE – deliver the statistics of great investor appetite for BEE. In short, make a big splash about how much the policy worked. Show the world that not only did it work, but it was secured against self-enrichment and avoided plunging more people into poverty. Show them how your great policy improved employment and show them how the people benefited en masse. Show them something about your great policy that you're clinging to with every ounce of alleged morality that it works. Wouldn't it be great if South Africa could go to the US and tell a good story about BEE? One that professes its successes, rather than an arbitrary moral assertion. Wouldn't it be great if the South African government, which so believes in its policy, would, after decades, be able to put together some convincing statistics that it's effective? Wouldn't it be great if that phone call was ballsy enough to include, 'this is what we've done for redress and this is how it's worked!'? READ NEXT: 'It's just gone' – Trump's tariffs cost SA company R750m overnight
The South African
12 hours ago
- The South African
Did Elon Musk snub handshake to Ramaphosa?
A clip of Elon Musk seemingly snubbing a handshake from President Cyril Ramaphosa has gone viral. But is it all it seems for the Pretoria-born billionaire who has accused the South African government of promoting 'openly racist laws'? On the X app, a short clip of President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House resurfaced. In May, the president visited the Oval Office alongside a delegation, where he met with US President Donald Trump. In the video, Ramaphosa shakes the hands of US officials, whilst Elon Musk laughs and looks on. 'Elon Musk doesn't touch k******. This is embarrassing 💔', read a X post. However, a community note quickly corrected the fake news by posting the full clip of Elon shaking the president's hand. Last year, the two men met to discuss the potential operation of Elon Musk's internet satellite service, Starlink, in the country. In images posted by the president, Musk was seen smiling while shaking his hand. South Africa is one of a few African countries that has not granted Elon Musk's internet satellite service, Starlink, a licence to operate. According to the world's richest man, this is a result of 'racist laws', which require his company to adhere to a 30% local ownership mandate. The Pretoria-born billionaire is referring to the transformative legislation, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), which he has reportedly rejected. According to reports, Starlink, which falls under SpaceX, could effectively bypass the law with its plans to invest over R2 billion in the country. Business Day reports that the company would finance infrastructure to support the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which is made up of 16 countries. Could Starlink operate in South Africa without adehering to transformative legislation? Images via X: @starlink In May, Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi gazetted a policy direction for his department on Equity Equivalent Investment Programmes (EEIPs), which are considered 'alternatives' to transformative legislation. Without mentioning Starlink or Elon Musk, the minister claimed that the policy would 'attract investment,' specifically in operating licensing. The minister revealed that current legislation for foreign investments 'did not allow companies to contribute to transformation goals in ways other than traditional ownership'. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
17 hours ago
- IOL News
South African banks face scrutiny over political account closures
SA's big banks' trade policies in the spotlight Image: IOL Regulators have been warned against approaching complaints about South African banks in the same way as US president Donald Trump, who this week issued an executive order after accusing financial institutions of unacceptably restricting law-abiding individuals and businesses' access to banking services based on political or religious beliefs. Mametlwe Sebei, president of the General Industries Workers Union of SA (Giwusa), an affiliate of the SA Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu), said Giwusa would not support merely implementing moves similar to Trump's as the situation required the same interventions but for different reasons. Sebei said moves against the banks for being reactionary and assaulting human rights must be supported. "We also know that banks are not accountable in this country, there are political parties, trade unions, community organisations whose bank accounts were closed without an adequate explanation," he said. Sebei described banks as untransformed and that there is not much to look into as far as the banking industry and its conduct are concerned as many South Africans have suffered a lot. He said even Giwusa recently had a dispute with one of the country's major banks, which gave some members access to the union's accounts without authorisation and there were no adequate explanations. According to Sebei, companies perceived to be close to certain public figures have had their bank accounts closed without explanation. "When they close bank accounts, they are effectively condemning workers in those companies to unemployment, retrenchments and job losses. You cannot destroy a company to punish the owners," he said. Sebei said the idea that private banking institutions can take political decisions is extremely dangerous and that is why this should be strongly regulated. In addition, he said the law already provides for instances where there is suspicion of misuse of banking facilities by a client that is able to be reported to the authorities as provided for in the Financial Intelligence Commission Act. Sebei added that the current laws can be implemented without jeopardising jobs and the livelihoods of workers. "Financial services are a lubricant by which the economy is working, it has enormous power in society and in the economy that can destroy not only individuals but also companies and whole industries. These people are wielding enormous public power that has been privatised into institutions that are guided by profiteering and nothing else and want to exercise this power without transparency, accountability and even pass political judgment and that for me is deeply troubling," he said.
